KHWiOR
Volume II. pages 283-290
Social and Cognitive Aspects of the
Development of Aggression in Infancy
Marc A. Provost
Universite du Quebec, Jrois-Rivieres, Quebec, Canada
This article ycldresst's Ihctnetical and mefhcHlolouical problfins in ihc sliith til a
sion in infants and tfiddlers. It is arjjucd that tht" (KTurreiKT ofajjjjressive behavior in
VTr> younf; children must be considered aj^ainst tht hackeroiiiul of their developing
Mwial competence. As a result, evidence for Ihe infants' capacities to ati v.ith SfjecilK"
intemions and Xhv inlants' knovvledj;i' of the other as a (iistinctive individual ha\in}> his
own plans and goals are reviewed. Studies of eyrly siKial interacfiuns oi humans are
then examined wilh lipeciaS emphasis on eiij-nitive development and social cognition.
Finally, the problem of dominance in very vouni; children's liroups Js considered.
Key words: agj^ression, infancy, stKial competente. cognition, iistenliimaiity
INTRODUCTION
c research on peer reladons ainong preschiKilers i^ burgeonniog. cinpirica!
a and Iheoretical work on very cyrly hunnm peer reiation.s and more spccsficatly
aggression is still rare. Socia! inieraetion in young animals has been well docunted. but the dala aie hardly reievan? (o human infanis* social behavior because
animals usually exhibit motoric aod social capacities more readily eoiiiparabie
•ith those of human pn^schoolers. It is largely because o\' the paucity of infornsation
Maccohy | I'^SOi considered thai "aggression hcgms to be an issue only m liie
hird and fourth year," This situation can probably be best explained by two factors.
First, historiealiy, studies of soeial interactions in hunums have concentrated more
HI preschool children :han on infants inoslK beeause ol' the observation facilities
ivailable in day earc tenters. The second iactor is the difficulty oi' defining and
nterpreting such behav or. .A.s a result, this article addresses theoretical and method
slogjcal problems in iht study of aggression in infants and toddlers.
l''!|XT p r c ' - c i i i c u a t I h i ' .Si\!lt ISjcnnuil
Address reprint requcsis !n M,A
1985 Alan R. l.iss- Inc.
\k-uun;i IITMR
!ii(,"f:iiilKi; a
SsK':i,i\
i o r \i::v::i\>:i\ .Mi A i . ' i ' j i ' s M i K i .
Provi>sL Univorsili.' du Qu:-i>cc, i'row-Rivicrcs, Quebec. Canada
:iany authors |Feshbach. 1970; Hiode. 1974: Kagan. !974| we may detune
aggression as behavior directed towards causing physical injury to anothei individual
However, many have pointed out that this definiiion cannot be easily operatiiHialized
and requires a distinetion, not always easy, between acts thai accidenuUly lead it*
injury and acts that are intentional. This dist!ncti(>n prt^ves to be crucial when we
address the speciSle question of aggression in infants.
In addition, because pure aliack is rare and aggression is iisiinHy associateci wiih
etenients of withdrawal, ethoiogists would prefer to speak of agooislic behav!<n\ Scott
and Fredeiicson introduced the term in 1951 to refer Ui any activity rehUeil to Ilghling.
whether aggression (ie, attaek, threat) or eonciliation (ie. fleeing or submissive
behavior). The term agonism, although idso loosely defined, has the advantage of
|)ointing to the close physiological relation between aggressive and submissive behav
ior fSeott and I'redericson, I9.'>!1. For our present eoncern, threat behavior is espeeially relevant, for it implies intentionaiity. ie. a distinction between goal^ ami means
IPiaget. I952|.
As stressed by Harding |1983]. if one wants to interpret a behavior a.s socially
directed, the assumption irmst be made that an individual is attempiing to affec!
another infentionai!y--that is. in the ease of aggression, lu harm intentionally In
order to examine developmental ehanges in agonistic behavior, it is necessary Sc^ make
inferences about whether or not the acEor is acting with intention. It Ls thus crucial to
differentiate She aclual effecis ofthe infant's behavior from the intended effects.
Harding [1983], raises three major dilTicullies in studying interactions in%'Ohing
prelanguage infants;
1. Although nonverbal eomniunication is well docuiiieoteci in infanc> there i> ao
conventional comniunicatiisn code m yomiii children~s interchanges lo mtcrpret,
aithough some have suggested that such a code exists jStrayer and Strayer, 1978;
Mimtagner, !978|;
2. The infant cannot corroborate our interpretation;
3. It is difficult to specify eriteria for the competence ol nifants to intend to
Because of these methodological diffieulties, we caonoi hnu! ourselves to observable
effects of behavior. In other words, the observation of a two-year-old ehild taking
away a toy from a peer wilhimt any precautions should not ininiediately lead us to
conelude this is an aggressive act. Presumably, for that reason Bludon Jones (1972)
found that his measures of "readiness to behave aggressively" did not correlate widi
the amount of taking.
The seeond problem lo he raised here eoncerns the cognitive level of the chskl
when acting with aggression, ie, the capacities ofthe uilant realty to eooiprehend the
nature ofthe other and the other's goats and plans leg. Bowlby, 1969!- Piaget |I9S2|
and Ruth Nielsen f !95i| elaimed that a child cannot fully understand tfie actual poini
i)f view of the other, at least at more than a very crude level, before the preschool
years. Bowlby 11969| and Ainsworth 119731 '*f'5*> phK-ed tiie period of goal-correeted
partnership wiih mother al around three years oi'age. However. Duno and Kendrick
f 19821 have reeently challenged these views in observing that hetore '} years, chsldrcn
could already anticipate and respond to the feelings of their baby siblings. Dunn and
Mumi [19851 have further documented in 14 month-old infants some instances of
•'pragmatic underslimding" of what will upset their older sibling.
Ai^gressitH! In Infiincx
2H5
The question of wht-thcr young children have an inlcnlion to hurt remains lo be
discussed. According to Kagan JI974|. if aggression Is defmed as behavior dircclfjd
toward causing physical injury to another individual, this infers that a child cannot be
aggressive until he has some "psychic inluilion" of injuring. Psychic inliiition is very
loosely defined and "Ae may substitute the concept t>f intention jHarding, i'l83],
Kagan goes on to stau, that the most predouimant agonistic behaviors exhibited by
IH-28-month-oid children are pu.shing, .striking, and seizing another's property, fn
his view, pushing without any threat occurs smiply as the ''desire to tnake an eflcti
ujjon the world, to test his own competence."'
This last interpretation is shared by Smith |N74] for whom "some aggressive
behaviour did not have (such) an obvious niotivatit)n and may have been exploratory
ill nature (such as pulling hair to see what happens),'" Furthennore, Blurton-Jones
11972] finds it "arguable that even though snatching things evokes crying t)r attack.
Its motivation is not always aggressive."" For him. it may suggest a lack of response
!(! these reactions, but "it need n()t indicate an aggressive response in the sense of a
tendency to hit or use other physical vioience,"
These conclusions are corroborated somewhat by Gauthier and Jacques [i985| m a
study of the ontogenesis of dominanee and affiliation in preschool children, 'fheir
results showed that on y 6.7% of social encounters of 6 -:H-month-old infants were
olan agonistie nature, whereas lhis proportion wa.s ^.2% for 2- ,^-year old children,
Ihese prop(.)rtions are quite small compared to 54.4% and 57-7% respcctivelv tor
affiliative behavior. However, the more sinking result was that, of these very small
proportions. 9.4% was used in threat behavisn- !or the 2- and 3-year-old group while
none of the time was spent in such behavior in the 6-21-nionth-old group. This lasr
resull seems to be a fairly good indication of the lack of iiitentioii m agonistic behaviinin very young children
The questions of th^' infants' capacities to act with specitle intentions and the
infants" knowledge of !,he other as a distinctive individual having his own plans and
goals iiidicate that agonistic behavior cannot be isolated from the rest of infants"
behavioral organization. However, as stated by Kaiverboer il974|. ''as long as there
!s no agreement about the definition and the operationali/ailion of aggression, diseus.sR)ri about its origins is fruitless." Kaiverboer goes on tt) state tliat questions eoneern-ing the origins of aggression iead to the very roots of the child's soeial development
|see also Parke and Slaby. 19831. ^'hi-- tseeurronce of aggiressive behavior in young
childreii must thus be :onsidered against the background of their developing social
eompetence. Parke and Slaby 11983] suggest that the precursors of the soeial regulation of aggressive intciehanges are most likely to be observed in ibe very llrst peer
interactions, namely in-^ant-infant interehanges.
We will thus turn iiow to studies of social iiiteraclions and examine the few
cnipirieal data on aggn;ssive behavior to be found in the literature, laymg emphasis
on their relation to eogiiitive development and soeiai e(tgnition.
F'rom an overall impression itf the literature on eariy peer interaetions, infants ean
he portrayed as basically nonaggressive jLewis el al, i975|. Several authors have
reported a low incidenee of agonisiie eneounters. Hay and Ross [I982| observed
5.1% of the time spenl in eonlliets: Rubinstein and Howes [1976| only a marginal
3%; Rrownlee and Bakeman [I981| 13 hard histings in 20 hours of observatitm; and
Vin/ce 11971! and Diibon el. al 119811 reported virtually none. Yet some discrepant
results ean he iouml Holmberg | I9"71 and Maudiy and Nekula [i9'^9t consideax'
%)% of toddlers' social interchanges as being "disruptive" and Bronson (I975| reporis
quite a high ineideoce of agonislie eneounters. thotigh eautsoniug against niterpreinsg
them as hostile behavior,
However, these latter results sht>i!ki be analyzed eorieiirrendv %vn'n ,NOUie OIIICE
features of irifani peer interchanges. Hartup 11983] notes ihat. on nieeling. interactivi
elements seem lo emerge in a nii)re or le,S!; invariant order: nitants look at. reaeli, dml
toueh each vHher. Several invesiigators have nsited that infani peer encounters r^teh
seemed serious in lone, impersonally inotivated and directed tiHoards loys with bnnled
aUeoEion to peers jMaudly und Nekula. 1939: Rubinsleui and Howes, 1976: MucHei
and Brenner. t977|. lliese deseriptions are conststeni with obsenations niatie oh
infants* exploration o( inanimate objects [Hull. I97O|. Ka\anaugli and MeC'jii 119K3;
hypothesize ihas toddk^rs, in clTcct, are expkiring eontingeiicies in eru:ounter> ^ i d .
peers and thai they are "m the proeess of determining what aeuon wiii ge^ a reaeiiun
>laymate"' (p .SO).
g the seeond year of lite, infants tend lo show mure gn*ss motor activiii lu.
'• their envin>nniefU, They use OKM'e and rncire banging, puslnng,. rnilling
g as pan of their explonnory reperton-e Thirs. -.ome hiituig seen ui Hie
interaction of ehildren in then' seeond year eoiild be interpreted -AS a kind of expk-ra
U)ry behavior [Smith. I974|.
Several authors have deseribed iisfanls and knidlers as iniiiaily a\\aru oiiiy oi ih%
toy. ignoring the presence of (sther eiiifdren. Hckerman and Wathiey 119791 aruue ihai
a |x;rson\s eonlaeting a toy increa.ses iis attraetiveness. Hint | I9';?(l] bas shi5wri ihai
exploratory behavior is increased by Ihe objeet's eapaeities to mve feedback lie,
moveiuen?, noise, or light). An inanimate object eould thus beeome nsore interesting
if manipulated by assother ehild. To gain acees> lo play material, infants or toddieoare often foreed lo take turns with s>ne ^mother fDunion. I983|- Thus, ihe scnnewiial
aecidenSal peer interaetions esiahlished by objeei eont:ie! generate a soei;n experience
thai helps the ehiki lo develop more advaneed ways of interaedng witb peers. This i^
supported by Mueller and colleagues [Mueller and Lucas, 1975: Mneller and Brenner
1975] who have argoed thai oianipulative play wilh inanimate ob|eeis is the predonii
mmi aetivity during peer play sessions.
Recently, some investigators have chaiienged this view, Vandell et ai | I9KO| foimd
that ''soeialiy direeted behaviour (SDB)*" was the niosl frequent pallern obhcr\ed in
their 6 - i2-nionSh-okl subjeeis. Beek<;r |[977t observed that 40,K9^' of !>eha\ ior bjwards a peer was stiinulalei! by prior behavior fn>m (he peer and et,'nciuded diat
infants seem lo respimd lo one aoother'h behavior, looaily, Hay and Ross [l9H2f
found thas the probability of yielding in loddlers' eontliei is influenced by the oonicm
o f t h e peer's aetion preceding it, ,'\ceording to these authors. Nueh fin<hrigs -.uggcsi
that to(kilers~ actions within eonlliets are nol chosen raodcjmly, finally. Dunn and
endriek [1982] presented evidenee of yom-jg children adjusting their speech in an
sibling |see also Shatz and (iehrian, 197,^1. Hartiip 11983| argues thai ~'soeiai
infants is evklent but the skills neeessary for sustained soeia! mteraetion
are not," Findings by Vandeil et al Ii98()| are eonsisteni with this ,st:ileniein. I hev
observed that most infanl-peer sequences were brief Iwo-unit exehanges. llowevei,
desenplioos by Dunn and Kendriek [I982| suggest that ihese skiiis eould be ^liread)
well developed at least between sibhngs, ie, belweeu ehikiren having a do-^x: eni**
al relationship. However, evidenee for the presenec at larioys a«!es of the necc*-
sary knowledge lo be soeial and theref(sre aggressive is stili scarce and sUulies
addressing this topie are needed.
Ans)ther distinction necessary here is thai between anger and aggression. .Anger
relers to an affective display. As heshbach |I97OJ outlined it. this display has a role
of communicating the organisms's frustraiion anc! thri^at to potcnsial adversaries.
(nK)denough, in :i piotKX'ring work ! 1^3 l|. deseribed anger in great detail and noted
that niosi of the outbursts at' very voung children were undirected Uinirums. whiie
afler the age of three most ciuthursls «cre retaliatory acts for behavic^r from sf^iieone
else. This developmental shift could be seen as evidenee for capacity lo control
aggression starting somewhere near the end of (he secontl year of life.
If anger is an affective display showing frustraiion, then we could argue w^'ith
Bfitlges that anger is one of the first enioiions present in newb<u-ns since [Vustratiois is
one ofthe pristiary negative experiences of \\\c ISpit/, l%5]. Htnvcver, aogei" as a
display of threat so potential adversaries [Peshbach. 19'''0| should eome laier on and
as a result of the reeogrititin of she potential adversary iiscif,
.As can be seen, there are stiil nsaii) problems of definuusn to be solved 1-j.hoh^gical
wurks fmve often clu'sen u* define aggression in terms (if precedence, slalus seOling
or, oJ' puriicular interest here, aeeess ks some object oi space. However, as HiiHie
1974i argues, all beha'^'ior thai results in access to some snieresting element of'the
nuiieu is not necessarily to be labeled aggressive behavior Asserliveness, tor one.
Ilk' legitimate expressi:>n of one's Interest, can be shmvn through politeness or
This leads to a last iheoretical point, that conecras ttxe iiuerpreiauon of one o! the
HiHuediate consequence>. of aggression, namely dominance. This is of speeific interest
here for dt)minance oien appears lo be an aspect o! effecliveness with peers.
r>(Mninanee is usually seen as a relationship. It is thus arguable ihat dominance
siruclurc in a group implies some stseial perception of others and social expectation
of specific responses to one's tnvn behavior, Wi(h ihis perspechve. sludics ol .socid!
dominance have examined forms of social exchange and described how patterns of
behavior arc coordinated between two yidividuals as shcy {niiiicipate m soeia's inieraction (Slrayer, I98(l|. Stieh empha.sis upon the inleraehve conlext may eveotuuHy
reveai teatures of soeial skills and of soeia 1 ink'ntion. Many studies | Vlissakian. I*-J8O;
Strayer, !98(), 1981 j have described a linear dominance structure in stable preschool
groups.' Likewise, Gauthier and Jacques 11985|, e>;plonrig the sociai organi/.alkm of
groups of children from one- to 5-yeafs old, observed Hrsear dooiioanee structures m
all these groups. H()we\er, agonistic encounlers were observed in 94% of all possible
dyads in vhc i-yeiir-oid ,^roup. whereas they were observed in 34% of all dyads in £he
5 year old group. On he other hand, concurrent measures of affiliative behavior
(aikni to show social reciprocity auiong children under 2 years of age. The authors
believe these results to demonstrate ihe development of social identity ihnnsgh peer
relaiitmships. Identification of social couiplenientary roles, they argue, is actively
^oll>iht by the infants with as many peer.-, as possible, but their idemilieation reqiiircs
tewer interactions in ."^-year old ehildren. Linear donnnance strueture appears fir^i
because the iinmctiiute consetjuenee of agonistic enct)iin!ers is more conspicuous than
the consequences of affiliative interaetions However, (hesc results should be ir^ierpreted aganist the backgroiind of the method used hy s.'pauthier and Jacques. Their
saiuple eonsisted of fivt; groups -inie per age ievei---or different si/,c: *). y. !.^. 15,
anJ \9 ehiklren, respedively. The probabHif\ lo interact with ail possible peers was
therefore higher m nifants (n--9) and toddlers rn-:..-9i than in the 5-year oiils in T-^i
('arelully designed studies are still needed to traee more aecurak;ly ihe devek^pmeni
of dominanee m. partieular and of social competence in general m infants. Quesnons
such as the following need to be answered bcSi)re we have an adequate f/KHire of
infants' social eompeienee: When does donunanee stan to be an issue m nilunis
groups'? Him rigid i.s fhc linear strucmre in the wry young! How docs annpcimon
and aggression interacS with cohesive behavior'^ How can infants' social Niatus be
measured preeisely','
1b conclude, we niay say that very Httle iS known aboui she onkJgencsis lA
aggression in humans. Already, a large eorpus of data on presehool children has been
gathered, but very little is known about infants" agonsstie behavit*!-, Misny problems
of definition arc yet to be solved and carefully designed developmental studies lirc
needed to traek down (he ontogenesis of agonistic behavior. The (iiost priHiiisifig
eourse, it appears, is io relate Ihe developmcni of aggression to ihe ontogenesis ^^f
sociai eompctence aud communieation; ie, the mutual understanding and agreeiiicni
about what an act means IRieh
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper was prepared while the author was we
al tne .VIeuieai Kesearci
Couneil Unit on the Developmenl and integration ot'
•iour, m (Cambridge, The
author is grateful lo A. Tamplin kn reviewing the p; •er and to R.A. Hinde tor hi;
advice an
REFERENCES
•\i^^^vunh MDS (!97.ir Ilk; dcvcinfinient o; rr,
Vhtmon Vv (108i): "Scciai and
uun nioHicr audclimcnL In C'aldwcH B. Ru.
opnieril." Ncv, York. Nurt
ciuU; H i'cdsl: "Review ot Child D!j\x'k)p!nen!
l>uh(-.n DC, Johse I) I.c/me
R o e a r c h . " Vn[, ^, Chicago- r n h c r s i l y H'L
de^ (k'nasigc^ iiiirrc i'nlani>
Chicago I'rcvs,
pri-r^ii'res innico^ dc h •, i
Beckci J (!977i, A barsimg anaiysis o!" (he dcvcl
.''i 2'-)0
lintance 2
opsneni of jvei oriented bs^haviorh in mnc
Dum: ,1,
nioruh'(i|(i snfanrs. !.)evc!opnK-nl;il Ps>choloii\
and
MA
!3:4K] 4')!,
'
""
vard
Blunon Jones N i\'-yJ2} CulciixmiSh M dvAa child
Diimi J,
inicracuon. Irs Bkiruin Joncs N fed): ""f-.ths!!noK
iniiiv s.-oiulicr and {he A
Dpviil Svji.\k\ of Chikl Beha\KHn." Cun:
s^via
Cr\[\o
hridjzc: Canmridjji.' (Jnivcrsilv P^L:^^
DcvcioptncfK 56,4K(i 4 9 ' .
ISin\[[i\ J (1069) ".'Miachfik-ni und Lo\>- Vni, I
lickcnnan C, \V:i!hk!v J ! l 9 7 7 r i"o>^Uacholcr!I " Lnndon; Hogarth Pres-;
inieracUiM hcvAvcn intsint pi;ers. ( ;iiu
p
uimicni 4 8 !64s IMb.
IJndgcs K (]'>H): A studyy of social devi-iopsneni
mmrl\ mi'ancy. Child Dcvchpnicm 4:36 49.
}v\hhiich S (19'/0)- Aggi^'wiDfL Li
Broiisoii W'X." ()97^t: Developnienis in behavior
(cdj: •'C:harniich:ters Misouaf or'
wiih :ij!L' nKi!c> during tht; .second ycnv ui hie
cholojiy." 2v,d cd, N\nJs Yoil: Wi!o
In I cw^s M., Roscnsbluin l^A U'd.sj "The
hianicns. I- {i97?i. Quelque> ?cindr'i
Oniiiu-: of Behavior. lTicndy.h!p and Peer Re
^aii-se dc I;.' anr.r.mnkHUo^' OOD v
iaiions,"' New York: John Wde)
'••,-^ inii-'Tdclnm.--, e n l i c
uausiW^on
tkownlee IR, Bakcinan R (1981 t: Hiftinji m ioddicr pcci" iiitcr;!ctiiin
Child ])c\eionnieiii
32;!0?6--in-y
'
dcncc de ia patoic S>r,i}!o\iuni d.
i;on dc p.-yeliologie -Hicnidlqise dc
raise "' Piin>, P l T p p ? ) 9 8^
If! tnfiuu:\'
MaiTiCiU I (i'iS.^)- Pcul (in parjer d
c
rUc biiginriittg of friendship, hi Lewis M, Rn••.t)ci.ik"- cnlrc nounssons dc inoins dc hivA
scnbium L (eds): -Friendship an(J Peer Relanidis, l-intarR-e. No. I ?.
tions " Now York.
isjuihior K, Ja^qLics M i I')S5K Dc^cklppi'mcnl Maccoby BF U9K0). -Social Development: Psy.Siiiiai' Aiialysc ^^an1Vcr^alL• df la dominancf,'
ehologicii! Growth and Parent-child Relaiinoe? LU: \'•diTiliiiVion chc/ les LTifanis il'iigc pr^-s
ship." New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
voLiir^'. In IVLTiibiey Rl-., PJo^o^,l MA, Sin:\(.-r Maudry M. Nekula M (19.^9! Social relations
I'f Scdsi: •"Hlholojiic ci Je\oloppcnk'iu di' 1'
hi^tweeo children of the same age durmg [he
cntani " P^ris: Slock,
firs! Iwo years ol lite. .loiU'iiai i)\ Cleneral Psy
(i..KKifni>ugh i-l. (I'>3I): '"Anj;c! in youn^i cliil
Jiology S4:I"V-2I5,
dren,'" Minncafxilis: Ihi vci.'-ity oi MinnewHa Missakian FA (!98()|: (lender differenees in agoisi-^iic behavior and domnianeo relations o( Syn
Hufditig C"(i (19S3j' Ac! me wiili irslcnuoii. A
anon eomnuinaliy reareii ehikheii. In Oniark
IVaincAork lor exiiinniini tin.' licvclopnicni of
i)R. Sirayer FF". Freednian DCi (eds)' "Domi
lhe interiLion io conununicatc. In Feagans i,,
nanee Relations "' New Yisrk' (jariand Press.
(iarv'cy C. Golinkotf R (cdsk "The OriginN Montagtier H (l'J78): "1.'enfant e( la conimunicaand Growth of ('onmiunicaiitm." Neu York:
iuni." Paris. Stock.
AIbex,
Mueiicr 1', ([97yi: (TixJtIlcrs f ioy,sj -- (anauionHartiip WW (i98Jl: Peer rclifioos. In Musscn PH
ojiious soeial sysleml. In Lewis M. Roseiii(ed): '"Handb(K)k ot" Child Psychology," Voi
bjuiii L (edsl: •'The Social Network of ihc
IV, New York: John Wdty,
Development Infant,'' \ e w York: Pienuin.
H;-.v DK Ross HS |I9X2): The social nature o! Muelicr F, Brcnnei J (19771: The ongins ol ^ocuil
early contlict, CliilJ Dcvelopincisi 53.I()S ii.^
skills and inieraciion among playgroup U)d
diers. Child Development 4XS54 K6I,
liuidc RA O'^'/'iV. The sUidy ol aggrL'ssion: <\c{cv
fniTuinLs, conscqiJCiico.s, g:)ais .tnd fuiicnoESs In Miielier B, Luca> T i 1975): A developmental anal!>e Witt J, Hartup WW ;edsi: "DcicnninanEs
ysis ol peei' iiHeraetion among toddlers, in
and Origins of Apgrc,s.-.ivr Behavior." "I hf Ha
1 ewis M, Rosonbluiti L (eds): "Frit-ntlship aiki
gLie. Moiilon. pp ^ 2X.
Pixr Relalions," New York. WiSey. pp 2232,i7,
llolmbcrt; MC (1977). The lA-velopnicrLi of social
inlerchangc paUeriis trom L' to 42 months- Nieben RF (1951): "'Le devclopi)€r?ient dc h socross-secfioiial iiiid short-lernt longitudinal
e^abiiiic chez Fenfant." KetiehareL Delachaux
:inaH'.se,s, Unpubl Lshcd t octoral disscvUitKHi,
ct Nieslle.
i'njvcisiiy of Noith t'aroiina at Chapel HilL
Parke RD, Slahy R(J (i9K:() The deveiopnien^ ol
Hutt C (1970): Sj>t'ciric and t iversivc t:>>plon)UO[i.
aggression. In Msissen PH (ed): "Handbook ol
in Reese HW. Ijpsict LI' Ich): "Advances jn
Child Psychology." Vol !V, New York: John
Child DevelopiiK-nt arsd Reha*K)ut." Vol 5,
Wiley and Sons.
New York: Academic Press.
Piagsi J (!9.'i2j' ""La naissanec de rintciligeriee."'
Jacohsnn i (1^8]). The role of inariirujtc objects
Netieliiitel: f>elachaux el Niestie,
m early peer inlcraeiion Child rX:velopniciil Richards MPM (1974)- The development of psy
52:!i!8-626.
ehological esiinniunieatioii iii the fusl vs^iir or
Kagan i (1974)- DevciDprnenia! and nielhodoiogi
lile In Connolly JK, Bruoner JS (eds): " l h e
cal considerations in the sludy of aggression.
(ifowth of (Jtmipetcnce " Nev^.^ York. AcaIn \>c Witt i, Har(up. WW (ed.s!: -Derrrnii
demic Press,
Jiants and Origins o!" Aggre'-sive Behjvuir
Rubcnstein ,f. i!ovv,;s C 11976}: The elTccis ot
The Hague: Mtsiuon, pp 107-114
peers on ioddlcr interaetion with mother and
toys. Child Development 47:>97 605,
Kaiverhoei A (1974): Tlte method ol direct ohservation of behaviour: soioe reniaiks on its rele- Seutl JP. Frederscson F: (19^U: The causes oi
vance in lhe study of aggr.-ssii^n. In De \V)ii J.
fighting in mice ijrid rats Physiological Zooi
Hamip WVv (cds|, "'!>cteniHn.in!s and Orignis
opy 24:27.^ UI9.
nj Aggressive Behaviour. ' The H;igue: Mou
,Shat/ M (iehiian R {I973i, The devt^iopnienr oi
!tM!, pp 87 95.
comrnuniciition skills, inoditlealions in sfjeech
Ka>anaugii RD, McCall RB ,'!983|. Sociai infiuoj young ehiklren as d function of the hsteiier.
csicmg anioiig two-year {^1 js: The roie of idTil •
Monograph i?f the Society loi Research in Ciiild
taiive and jntagonisiie behaviors
Iiiiaiii
Deveiopnicni .I.'SI.SK
Behavior and Deve!i>pnieni 6.39 52.
Smith PK (1974): Aggi-essiori in a preschool play
l.vv^i^ M. Young (j, Bnxiks ,1, Michalson L i [9']'>)group: clfecSS of varying physical icsourees
nani^ and Oiigsos o^ Aggressive BehisvRM ~
The Hat!ue: MoulorK pp 97- 105.
Spsl/. R t l % ^ l , "•[ liL' Mrs! Year of i tic ~ \ o w
Yofk: Inlenmiiondl UniveisiKc^ Prc"-s
Kiraycr M'n'^)S()), Social eajiogv of the prt'^chool
peer group. In C'fiHins W,'\ (ed)- "[>cvelopn»cnt
t>f CognJlioji, Ai'ku;! iirid S<*ci;d ReliiTsons ~
Hiilhdale, NJ, (..iiwreiice rtrlbaurn,
S!ni>or ¥\' M^JKI'r The or^'issii/ohon arki '.'IMVI-S-,
nalioi! oi a'-y!or;;eUicijl rcliuions anKviig younj.',
chiidren, A Iriokti-ieal vicu 'M soi'ial power,
]!rhirvii)ral Si'tcnce "-'.3 5 4*i
SU"s>cr J Sluiver \-V ^07}^!• So; i:^l .\;ip:::s-.:^',
.lod poiAi-r ref.ilions .y'iong preschool eh^ldrcii
Aggressivd Bi',hinior - U " V i!<2
VandcH IM,.. W^ison KS, Ikk'han^iii \ R ( i ' ' ^ n i
Peer ioteraction in \hv ilrsi ve;K "i hfe A
,!x:iyim<i!K)n oi lt^-,!nkii:re, oonioni and-e;r^,
%\\\\s u.i\'-^s\ Chikf [)eveiof)!8)f-ip ''1 IHl 4 8 8
Vitk'A' M !l^^-'[5 The ^f^eia' i-iHitaci' ol inlufu
-iiid vouiig childrt'fi roared lo;jclhe^ l-'.irh. Chil
Deveisinnunii ;mw ( j r c 1 '3K :()!•,